In a recent ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a lawsuit filed by journalist Alex Berenson against several high-profile defendants, including Pfizer executives and former government officials. The court's decision, issued on October 20, 2026, stemmed from Berenson's claims that his First Amendment rights were violated when his Twitter account was suspended due to his critical views on COVID-19 vaccines.
This ruling affects Berenson and others who may feel their free speech rights are being suppressed by social media platforms. The case highlights ongoing debates about censorship, public health communication, and the role of social media in moderating content.
Background
Alex Berenson, an independent journalist and author, became known for his critical reporting on COVID-19 vaccines during the pandemic. He alleged that the Biden Administration, along with Pfizer executives, conspired to pressure Twitter into suspending his account because of his views. Berenson's follower count on Twitter grew significantly during the pandemic, reaching over 229,000 by March 2021.
Berenson's lawsuit, filed in April 2023, accused former President Biden, along with other officials and Pfizer executives, of violating his First Amendment rights, conspiring to suppress his speech, and tortiously interfering with his contractual relationship with Twitter. The case was heard in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, where Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke dismissed the claims on September 30, 2025.
The Ruling
The Second Circuit reviewed the dismissal and upheld the lower court's decision. The court ruled that Berenson's claims did not meet the necessary legal standards. Specifically, the court found that Berenson's allegations did not demonstrate that he was part of a protected class under Section 1985(3), which requires evidence of class-based discriminatory animus. The court stated, "Berenson asserts that the relevant class here is a 'class of Americans who had chosen not to receive a COVID-19 vaccine.' This is precisely the kind of class that the Supreme Court cautioned against in Bray—a class composed of individuals who share a desire to engage in conduct that the defendants allegedly disfavor."
Furthermore, the court found that Berenson failed to establish a valid claim of tortious interference with his contract with Twitter. The court noted that Twitter's Terms of Service allowed for account suspension "at any time for any or no reason," which meant that Berenson could not claim a breach of contract when his account was suspended.
Impact
The Second Circuit's ruling has significant implications for free speech and social media regulation. It reinforces the idea that social media companies have broad discretion in moderating content on their platforms, even if users argue that such actions violate their rights. The ruling also clarifies the legal standards for claims of conspiracy and tortious interference in the context of social media and public discourse.
This case may deter similar lawsuits from individuals claiming their speech has been suppressed by social media platforms, as the court's decision sets a precedent that emphasizes the need for a clear demonstration of discrimination or violation of rights. It highlights the complex interplay between public health communication and individual rights in the digital age.
What's Next
Berenson's legal options appear limited following the Second Circuit's decision. He may seek to appeal the ruling, but the chances of success are uncertain given the court's clear reasoning. There are no related cases pending that directly address this matter. The outcome of this case may influence future discussions on the balance between free speech and public health messaging on social media platforms.